2 ms·
They said they don't think it's essential to reduce false negatives, presumably from current levels. That's quite different than your reducto ad absurdum.
by rfrey 4y ago
They said they don't think it's essential to reduce false negatives, presumably from current levels. That's quite different than your reducto ad absurdum.
- caminante 4y agoWell, GP/"they" didn't do a good job being clear. They laid out two scenarios with 5 people stealing candy. A. 0% false positive; 40% false negative B. 20% false positive; 20% false negative (or maybe 4 people convicted with 1 innocent.) Either way, the false negative % decreased, and it seemed like the point was that they viewed A as morally superior (at the expense of higher false negatives). Overall, sure. You don't have to necessarily decrease the false negative rate, however, it's something that ideally doesn't go up, all else equal.